173 W. Va. 164 - State v. King’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably 190 W. Va. 321 - In Re an Investigation of the West Virginia State Police Crime Laboratory (1993), 191 W. Va. 272 - State v. Crouch (1994)
33 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 151 W. Va. 1 - State v. Hamric · 159 W. Va. 691 - State v. Milam · 408 So. 2d 861 - State v. Talbot · Halstead v. Horton · 162 W. Va. 935 - State v. Frazier
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'A new trial will not be granted on the ground of newly-discovered evidence unless the case comes within the following rules: (1) The evidence must appear to have been discovered since the trial, and, from the affidavit of the new witness, what such evidence will be, or its absence satisfactorily explained. (2) It must appear from facts stated in his affidavit that plaintiff was diligent in ascertaining and securing his evidence, and that the new evidence is such that due diligence would not have secured it before the verdict. (3) Such evidence must be new and material, and not merely cumulative; and cumulative evidence is additional evidence of the same kind to the same point. (4) The evidence must be such as ought to produce an opposite result at a second trial on the merits. (5) And the new trial will generally be refused when the sole object of the new evidence is to discredit or impeach a witness on the opposite side.’ Syllabus, State v. Frazier, 162 W.Va. [9]35, 235[253] S.E.2d 534 (1979), quoting, Syl. pt. 1, Halstead v. Horton, 38 W.Va. 727, 18 S.E. 953 (1894).” Syl. Pt. 1, State v. King, 173 W.Va. 164 , 313 S.E.2d 440 (1984). . The defendant made three statements that the State introduced into evidence. The first statement was made at the time of his capture, when the defendant said to the victim, "Hey, man, I’m sorry. Here’s your money back.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[n]o one would doubt that a confession by another person to the crime, if discovered after trial, could be a ground for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. A confession by another person, however, does not invariably require a new trial; the integrity of the confession is for the trial court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.